First off, I don't know why I'm bothering with you, obviously you just like to try to get a rise out of people, and you think you are always right. I really question whether you even read the article. I did your little google search suggestion and found more articles saying there is no link between weed smoking and lung cancer, not the other way around--maybe you should do a search yourself!Keyser Soze wrote:Err, I did read the link. There is plenty of evidence to show there is a correlation. Do a google search yourself and you'll see!!!
Also, as I have said before, resorting to abuse to get a point across is a sign of poor intellect and an inability to argue/debate an issue in a mature, adult way.
http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/c ... yth4.shtml
Are you a medical doctor at a leading research university? I don't think so. So where do you get off saying these guys are totally wrong? The article I initially sited was by researchers at UCLA, the first article in the list above is about a similar study a year ago by Johns Hopkins--these are two leading medical research universities. Both sets of researchers expected to find a link between week and lung cancer, both were admittedly surprised to find no link whatsoever. A) scientists don't like to admit they are wrong, and don't do it lightly B) both of these institutes may have recieved state of federal money for research, and might have even been trying to find a link to help anti-drug causes C) you aren't a research scientist. SO, where do you get off just dismissing all of this with zero proof? Please post some links to serious scientific research to back up you bs.
Second, as glu pointed out, you started the "abuse" with a long paragraph of idiotic sarcastic phrases and "blah blah blah" in response to my post--please spare me your lame excuse that sarcasm isn't a "direct insult" --it is one of the more inflammatory means of insulting someone that I know of--making fun of something someone believes in is abuse, is insulting. not that I let your bs get to me, your track record here preceeds you--that is all you do is say argumentative crap with nothing to back it up. feel free to back up your crap talk with some factual proof, otherwise STFU. I'd like to know why we should believe your bs instead of believing leading research scientists who publish their findings and admit their hypothesis was wrong. These scientists have no ulterior motive to publish these results--in fact the results they published proved they were wrong.
none of the above, you are an assclown, assbag, and asshat all rolled up in one stinky pile of bsKeyser Soze wrote:Am I real? Am I a myth? Am I mad or am I a genius?